[Congressional Record Volume 172, Number 73 (Monday, April 27, 2026)]
[House]
[Pages H3106-H3107]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
TAXPAYER NOTIFICATION AND PRIVACY ACT
Mr. SMITH of Missouri. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and
pass the bill (H.R. 6495) to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to
provide for specific taxpayer notice when information is sought from
third parties, as amended.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The text of the bill is as follows:
H.R. 6495
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Taxpayer Notification and
Privacy Act''.
SEC. 2. SPECIFICITY OF THIRD-PARTY CONTACT NOTICES.
(a) In General.--Paragraph (1) of section 7602(c) of the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended--
(1) by striking ``and'' at the end of subparagraph (A),
(2) by redesignating subparagraph (B) as subparagraph (C),
(3) by inserting after subparagraph (A) the following new
subparagraph:
``(B) in any case in which the information sought to be
obtained from such other persons is related to determining
tax liability, has not been previously requested from the
taxpayer, and could reasonably be provided by the taxpayer,
identifies each specific item of information intended to be
sought from such persons, and'', and
(4) by amending subparagraph (C), as redesignated by
paragraph (2), to read as follows:
``(C) except as otherwise provided by the Secretary,
provides the taxpayer with reasonable opportunity and a
period of not less than 45 days (or more, if the taxpayer
requests additional time and shows reasonable cause) to
respond before contact is made with such other persons.''.
(b) Exception.--Section 7602(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue
Code of 1986 is amended--
(1) by redesignating subparagraphs (A), (B), and (C) as
clauses (i), (ii), and (iii), respectively, and by moving
such clauses 2 ems to the right,
(2) by striking ``Exceptions.--This subsection'' and
inserting ``Exceptions.--
``(A) In general.--This subsection'', and
(3) by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
``(B) Exception for information specificity.--Subparagraph
(B) of paragraph (1) shall not apply to information sought
from a person other than the taxpayer if the Secretary
determines that such information is necessary.''.
(c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to notices provided under section 7602(c) of the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 after the date that is 12
months after the date of the enactment of this Act.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from
Missouri (Mr. Smith) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Panetta)
each will control 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Missouri.
General Leave
Mr. SMITH of Missouri. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all
Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks
and include extraneous material on the bill under consideration.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Missouri?
There was no objection.
Mr. SMITH of Missouri. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 6495, the Taxpayer
Notification and Privacy Act, bipartisan legislation introduced by
Representatives Greg Steube and Jimmy Panetta.
When the IRS seeks information about a taxpayer, the agency should
not be able to go behind their back without their knowledge. Yet, right
now, the IRS can do just that.
Currently, the IRS is not required to notify a taxpayer who is under
review or investigation about what information the agency is seeking;
who it may have contacted; or, for that matter, give the taxpayer the
opportunity to provide the information themselves. This puts the
individual taxpayer in a situation where their privacy, their
livelihood, or their reputation could all be unduly harmed.
That is unacceptable. Thanks to Representative Steube--a tireless
advocate for the American taxpayer--who has been focused on holding a
powerful agency like the IRS accountable, taxpayers will be better
protected.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. PANETTA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman and Representative Greg Steube for
their work together with me on the Taxpayer Notification and Privacy
Act.
It is commonsense, bipartisan legislation, passed unanimously out of
the Ways and Means Committee, that would ensure that the IRS respects
the privacy and the dignity of every taxpayer when collecting needed
information.
As you heard from the chairman, under current law, the IRS must
notify taxpayers before reaching out to third parties, like banks,
employers, or even neighbors, to gather information. Yet, these notices
are often vague. They fail to specify exactly what they want. At times,
they don't even give taxpayers any opportunity to defend themselves or
for the taxpayers to provide the information themselves.
The National Taxpayer Advocate Service has warned that the current
approach falls short. It leaves honest Americans blindsided, and it can
put people's reputations at risk in close-knit communities, where a
whisper about IRS investigations can chill businesses and damage
livelihoods.
The Taxpayer Notification and Privacy Act changes that. It would
implement a National Taxpayer Advocate's recommendation to mandate
tailored notices in which the IRS clearly--clearly states what
information it needs and from exactly whom.
{time} 1550
It then grants the taxpayer a full 45 days to supply that
information. This empowers families. This empowers businesses to
resolve issues privately with the IRS, protecting their reputation and
relationships with local banks and other vendors.
This bill also includes certain exceptions for circumstances where
the information is determined to be necessary or when the information
is
[[Page H3107]]
sought specifically to collect tax liability.
This strikes the balance we want in legislation creation between
allowing taxpayers to resolve issues privately and ensuring that these
notices cannot be used to avoid taxes.
Ultimately, taxpayers who have followed the law should not have to
fear the IRS soliciting sensitive data behind their backs.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes,'' and I reserve the
balance of my time.
Mr. SMITH of Missouri. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may
consume to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Steube), the sponsor of this
legislation.
Mr. STEUBE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 6495, the
Taxpayer Notification and Privacy Act.
At its core, this commonsense legislation is a simple due process
idea: Before the IRS goes to your bank, your employer, your vendor, or
another third party for information about you, when you can reasonably
provide that information yourself, you should be told what they are
looking for and given a fair chance to respond.
Under current law, taxpayers can receive a general third-party
contact notice, but too often those notices aren't specific enough to
let a person meaningfully respond. When the IRS reaches out to third
parties, it can create real-world consequences: reputational harm,
confusion, or stress for families and small businesses, especially when
the taxpayer could have simply produced the records directly.
Mr. Speaker, this legislation is about building a healthier
relationship between taxpayers and their government. Our citizens
deserve a Federal Government that respects privacy and due process
while still ensuring the IRS can do its job.
This bill does not stop the IRS from obtaining information it truly
needs. It simply ensures taxpayers receive meaningful notice and a fair
opportunity to provide the information themselves when appropriate.
For law-abiding Americans, compliance is already complicated enough.
The least we can do is ensure that when the IRS intends to go outside
the taxpayer to gather information the taxpayer can provide, the
taxpayer gets clarity--what exactly is being sought--and a fair chance
to respond.
This is a bipartisan effort, and I am honored to work with
Congressman Panetta on this legislation because protecting taxpayers
and improving procedural fairness should not be partisan. I also thank
Senator Barrasso of Wyoming for being the leader on this issue in the
Senate, and I hope this bill can receive quick consideration in the
Senate and sent to the President's desk.
I thank Chairman Smith for his leadership in creating a more
efficient, more transparent tax administration that works better for
all taxpayers.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the Taxpayer
Notification and Privacy Act.
Mr. PANETTA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Just briefly, again, I thank Representative Steube and Chairman Smith
for their leadership on this legislation, and I urge the House to pass
this commonsense legislation.
The Taxpayer Notification and Privacy Act will ensure that taxpayers
are treated with transparency, with dignity, and with fairness that we
all deserve.
By giving Americans a clear chance to provide information to the IRS
first, we can protect their privacy, their reputations, and their
relationships. This will reduce unnecessary third-party probes, saving
resources and protecting taxpayers. This strengthens trust between our
constituents and the government while ensuring that taxes are properly
collected.
Mr. Speaker, that is why I urge a ``yes'' vote, and I yield back the
balance of my time.
Mr. SMITH of Missouri. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my
time.
Among the supporters of this bill is the National Taxpayer Advocate,
the independent organization tasked with helping taxpayers solve
problems with the IRS. Their recommendations align with the changes
this legislation would enact to strengthen taxpayer rights.
It is not only about protecting a right to privacy but also the
principle of fairness that all Americans should be afforded under the
law.
Mr. Speaker, I encourage my colleagues to support this legislation,
and I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the
gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Smith) that the House suspend the rules
and pass the bill, H.R. 6495, as amended.
The question was taken; and (two-thirds being in the affirmative) the
rules were suspended and the bill, as amended, was passed.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________